Search results

It's a fucking 1965 chart of CENTRAL ENGLAND you fucking douchewad. Stop lying or just kill yourself. Do you believe in hell? You are going there. Fuck you.

That chart is from 1965 and shows only central England temps. Liar douchebag troll. Kill yourself now.

You just ignore the science. I have shown it many times. You ignore it. Shut the fuck up douchebag. 2. However there is another more important point...your so called bedrock principle has not been scientifically proven in any paper. So you would think they might want to prove it a few...

How many times do I have to tell you jerm? It's the rate of change. The rate, not the absolute number. Now I know why you are so confused. You really know nothing about AGW do you? Yet you pretend that you do. But seeing as how you only look at bullshit denialist websites like WUWT for...

In short, every "scientist" piehole has paraded out here in the last few months in his putrid posts are paid-for whores, frauds, and just plain fools that the other 97% of climate scientists basically just laugh at. One wonders why they are the only ones he references. Almost like he works for...

More on the recent fraud/fool of piehole's..... Richard Lindzen. Quotes by Richard Lindzen Climate MythWhat the Science Says ""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming"" 25 July 2012 (Source) This argument...

Oh and now piehole parade out his next fool and fraud. Lindzen is almost as much of a joke as Salby, Monckton, Ball, Spencer and the rest of the paid-for science whores. Yeah, we can trust a scientist working for the CATO Institute like Lindzen does. He's a doubt merchant. Just like the ones...

So you are basically saying that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas. Because if it was, rising levels would have to cause rising temps and you say it doesn't. Interesting, but absurd, position you are taking there. Okay, since you seem to be confused with that chart, here's some other looks...

Piehole just took another dump.

Midwestern States Across the Midwest, signs of our rapidly changing climate become clearer each year. Records show that spring is arriving sooner, dangerously hot weather is occurring more often, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. Climate research shows that if global warming...

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these...

Look asshole. What part of " they are not going to expressly state a bedrock principle of the science in every climate science paper" don't you understand?

Actually it's a fact. Moron.

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[107][108][109]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to...

No jem. The number of papers denying AGW is vanishingly small. Your other statistic is meaningless. AGW is a fact in climate science and the papers will never expressly state it, just as biology papers don't expressly say evolution is true. We've been over this already, liar.

Oh, so we have another idiot calling science, propaganda. Just great. Yeah, these guys are propagandist also.... American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years...

The first thing anyone who wishes to do a literature review needs to do is to decide what question they wish to answer. Many people seem to assume that my question was, “What percentage of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]?” But that was not my question. Rather it was, “What...